The Supreme Court’s landmark verdict on sub-classification of the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) quota marked a milestone for equality jurisprudence. In his opinion, written for himself and Justice Manoj Misra as part of the 6-1 majority verdict, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud underlined the concept of “substantive equality” — the principle that the law must account for the different backgrounds and historical injustices faced by persons or groups.
Substantive Equality
Substantive Equality acknowledges that achieving true equality in outcomes often requires varying levels of support and intervention for different individuals or groups. It seeks to remedy historical and systemic disadvantages by taking into account the distinct backgrounds and specific needs of marginalized or disadvantaged groups.
For instance, in the cntext of reservations and affirmative action, this approach might involve establishing sub-categories within SC/ST quotas to ensure that the most disadvantaged segments within these communities receive the intended benefits.
Evolution of the Supreme Court’s View on Reservation in India
As Limiting Equality:
Initial Formalistic Approach, reservations as an exception to the principle of equal opportunity.
1951: State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
Decision: Reservation of seats in educational institutions deemed unconstitutional.
Reasoning: Lack of express provision in the Constitution; seen as an exception to equal opportunity.
1951: B Venkataramana v. State of Madras
Decision: Only Harijans and backward Hindus classified as “backward classes” for public job reservations.
Constitutional Amendment (1951):
Article 15(4) inserted to permit reservations in educational institutions as an exception to Article 29 that prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them with respect to admission into educational institutions
As A Facet of Equality:
Expanding the Scope of Reservation
In 1958, the State of Mysore reserved 75% seats in educational institutions for all communities except the Brahmin community.
This was challenged before the SC in M R Balaji v State of Mysore (1962), in which the court for the first time prescribed a 50% ceiling for reservation.
This limit is contested — but it has endured, with the exception of the 10% Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota introduced in 2019.
State of Kerala v. N M Thomas (1975), the SC made an “expansive and substantive reading of the equality code”.
The court upheld a Kerala law in which the qualifying criteria for government jobs was relaxed for SC and ST candidates.
It held that the law was not an exception to the principle of equality of opportunity.
Reservation viewed as a means to substantive equality rather than an exception to equality.
As Limiting Efficiency:
Balancing Efficiency and Reservationc
Article 335: Mandates that reservations must be consistent with maintaining administrative efficiency.
1992: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
Decision: Reservations in promotions deemed to dilute administrative efficiency.
Constitutional Amendment 1992
Article 16(4A) inserted to permit reservations in promotions and consequential seniority.
Aimed to address “catch-up rule” and ensure that seniority attained through promotion was retained.
The Constitution (Seventy-seventh) Amendment Act, 1995
Inserted Article 16(4A) to allow “consequential seniority”, which meant that the seniority attained by a reserved-category candidate over his peer in the general category by being promoted earlier would be retained for the next promotion.
The law on consequential seniority was upheld in 2006 on the ground that the efficiency of administration was only relaxed, not “obliterated”, by the rule.
Reframing the Reservation vs. Merit Debate
Recent Developments:
CJI Chandrachud’s Rulings:
Emphasized that reservation is a facet of substantive equality and not a concession.
Criticized the binary view of reservation vs. merit.
Argued that higher examination marks do not necessarily equate to higher efficiency.
Suggested that minimum qualifying marks are sufficient to maintain administrative efficiency.
Early Perspective was that reservations viewed as exceptions to the principle of equality. Now there is shift towards viewing reservations as integral to achieving substantive equality. Reservations is seen as reflecting the mandate of equality enshrined in the Constitution, challenging the notion that they inherently lead to inefficiency.
